That Selkirk foam looks nice. I bought my 182 with all the interior panels and insulation stripped. It's just bare aluminum and some white paint in places. Besides appearance, does the foam reduce noise too?

Pierre

Also, does anyone have a good source for the flex ducting that goes to the rear eyeball fresh air vents?

Pierre_R wrote: Besides appearance, does the foam reduce noise too?


Also, does anyone have a good source for the flex ducting that goes to the rear eyeball fresh air vents?

Sound is pretty much the point for using the foam... although no one should be under the impression that the 1/4" foam is a GREAT sound deadner. Nothing is free, and when you go w/ a striped down interior the airplane is for sure louder... For me, the extra space and general utility look was more important than a whisper quite interior. That said, a good set of ANR renders its it a mute point.

RE: the duct, its just CAT or SCAT, whatever you want to use.

I took the springs out of my super cub seat, covered it in fabric, and put the cushions back on. It's better than the old springs.

Slowly but surely...the black stuff comes off relatively easy compared to the old yellow glue. They sure laid that yellow stuff thick!!!

Looks good! Glad you have another airplane to fly during the process?

Looking good Skaly, it's not easy, but it's worth it in the end.

It's hard to paint and cover all that hard work with foam.

I see a lot of elbow grease involved in stripping the original Cessna glue and whatever substances have been applied over the years. Growing up in the old car and hot rod business with my old man, we used various medias of blasting that took everything right down to the bare metal with comparatively minimum amount of work.

The original work of old was done with sand blasting, but newer media is increasingly used like walnut shells. Has anyone tried using that sort of thing or is there some reason why this is not done in the aviation community? Obviously, there would be some masking involved because of avionics, glass, etc, but why wouldn't this work? Maybe thickness of aluminum/metals?

Thx,
JB

I chemically stripped my entire 185 exterior. With the right know-how, proper equipment (airless sprayer) and a lot of elbow grease it wasn't horrible. When I moved on to the interior I used the chemical stripper as well. It was an a$$ pain of epic proportions to dig through the black Cessna insulation glue. Once I had it all removed I was unhappy with the light surface corrosion that remained underneath. It was very very light, but was difficult to address with scotch brite due to the complexity and angles between bulkheads etc.

With that in mind, I decided to try media blasting it. I discussed it with Granger and they recommended a light glass. We tented the fuselage and I went "wild dingo" on it for a full day. We kept the pressure light and only hit the surfaces that needed it. Once completed it looked amazing on the inside! I was very happy with the results. The drawback is that that crap gets everywhere! I don't care how well you prepare, it will penetrate everything! My fuselage was stripped to completely barebones and it still took me a full day of blowing, vacuuming and washing to make sure it was completely clean of any media. That was three years ago and my buddy is still complaining about glass bead all over his hangar! I would do it again, but I would never do it to anything other than a completely stripped fuselage!

Thanks for that. I would agree that it would be ideal on a totally stripped fuselage (or in hot rod lingo..."frame off") and would be a major PITA otherwise.

With that level of detail, I bet your wagon came out looking nice.

Well despite adding a 700-6 nose, 8.50 mains, hd wheels n double puck breaks, so far have went from 1811lbs to 1647lbs just by cleaning n pulling out the 70 era interior

In the 56 182 I have folding rear seats, firewall battery, sportsman STOL, extended baggage, a 310 nose fork with 600x6 and 700x6 mains. All under 1500 pounds. The 56 started out lighter than the 57.

Tim

Those early 182's must be lighter than the early 180's. My 53 model 180 weighs in at 1663# with engine oil but zero fuel. Granted, it has some weight-adding mods (k engine, 850's & double-pucks, 185 gear legs, v-brace, extended baggage), and but even knocking that extra weight off it's not even close to these 1500 pound airplanes I keep reading about. Are you guy's numbers from actual weigh-ins, like mine, or just calculated?

hotrod180 wrote:Those early 182's must be lighter than the early 180's. My 53 model 180 weighs in at 1663# with engine oil but zero fuel. Granted, it has some weight-adding mods (k engine, 850's & double-pucks, 185 gear legs, v-brace, extended baggage), and but even knocking that extra weight off it's not even close to these 1500 pound airplanes I keep reading about. Are you guy's numbers from actual weigh-ins, like mine, or just calculated?

Have calibrated certified scales can travel and have

hotrod180 wrote:Those early 182's must be lighter than the early 180's. My 53 model 180 weighs in at 1663# with engine oil but zero fuel. Granted, it has some weight-adding mods (k engine, 850's & double-pucks, 185 gear legs, v-brace, extended baggage), and but even knocking that extra weight off it's not even close to these 1500 pound airplanes I keep reading about. Are you guy's numbers from actual weigh-ins, like mine, or just calculated?

I did some work to a 53 model 180, was wrecked once weighed 1741 or something like that. Actual weight on scales. Nothing too fancy in it.

Maybe I just have the bad luck to always buy heavy airplanes. My ragwing 170 weighed around 1340 when everyone else's was (allegedly) around 1250. My C150/150TD was around 1240. My 180 is around 1660 when everyone else is claiming low 1500's.

Maybe I just need to quit actually weighing them?

Hendo wrote:I chemically stripped my entire 185 exterior. With the right know-how, proper equipment (airless sprayer) and a lot of elbow grease it wasn't horrible. When I moved on to the interior I used the chemical stripper as well. It was an a$$ pain of epic proportions to dig through the black Cessna insulation glue. Once I had it all removed I was unhappy with the light surface corrosion that remained underneath. It was very very light, but was difficult to address with scotch brite due to the complexity and angles between bulkheads etc.

With that in mind, I decided to try media blasting it. I discussed it with Granger and they recommended a light glass. We tented the fuselage and I went "wild dingo" on it for a full day. We kept the pressure light and only hit the surfaces that needed it. Once completed it looked amazing on the inside! I was very happy with the results. The drawback is that that crap gets everywhere! I don't care how well you prepare, it will penetrate everything! My fuselage was stripped to completely barebones and it still took me a full day of blowing, vacuuming and washing to make sure it was completely clean of any media. That was three years ago and my buddy is still complaining about glass bead all over his hangar! I would do it again, but I would never do it to anything other than a completely stripped fuselage!

The question I have for folks stripping the interiors of their airplanes is How do keep all that chemical and/or media out of the belly of the airplane, or how do you clean all that chemical and/or media out of the belly of the airplane when you're done stripping?

Using chemical stripper inside an airplane would be spooky to me, unless you could be assured of keeping that stuff out of the belly. Otherwise, you run the risk of stripping some of the interior in the belly, and the stripper and now unprotected metal in the belly is subject to corrosion....that is, after all, where moisture and "junk" collects.

My experience with these airplanes has been exclusively with airplanes equipped with a seaplane kit, which includes factory corrosion proofing in the interior of all skins. I'd never strip that stuff out, since it'd be hard to duplicate this corrosion proofing. But, all these planes I've seen on here don't have the seaplane kit, so factory corrosion proofing is minimal to non existent anyway.

MTV

Mike, I'm using 3M adhesive remover to strip the interior. It evaporates like avgas so not real worried about it getting into the cracks. Either way I wash twice with clean water and dry. I wish I had the seaplane zinc coating. I do have partial zinc floor though and the 3M stuff is safe on it so far, as it claims to be.

I may be able to get mine into the very high fifteens once I loose the extra antennas, cables n wires I don't need and strip the paint, but that would be with no interior and only one seat. 1647lbs is on scales, no fuel, one (heavy) seat

I am not sure why some of you guys think the inside of a chemical toilet is attractive.

tim

Skalywag wrote:Mike, I'm using 3M adhesive remover to strip the interior. It evaporates like avgas so not real worried about it getting into the cracks. Either way I wash twice with clean water and dry. I wish I had the seaplane zinc coating. I do have partial zinc floor though and the 3M stuff is safe on it so far, as it claims to be.

Does this mean it won't take the zinc off Luke? I've been thinking that I need to start with my interior soon. It has the seaplane kit and is fully zinced.